MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3090071863 · doi:10.3386/w28062

How Would Medicare for All Affect Health System Capacity? Evidence from Medicare for Some

2020· report· en· W3090071863 on OpenAlexafffund
Jeffrey Clemens, Joshua D. Gottlieb, Jeffrey Hicks

Bibliographic record

VenueNational Bureau of Economic Research · 2020
Typereport
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicHealthcare Policy and Management
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
FundersStanford Institute for Economic Policy ResearchNational Institute on AgingNational Institutes of HealthSocial Sciences and Humanities Research Council of CanadaEinaudi Institute for Economics and Finance
KeywordsAffect (linguistics)Actuarial scienceHealth careBusinessPlan (archaeology)Public economicsEconomicsPsychologyEconomic growth

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Proposals to create a national health care plan such as "Medicare for All" rely heavily on reducing the prices that insurers pay for health care.These changes affect physicians' short-run incentives for care provision and may also change health care providers' incentives to invest in capacity, thereby influencing the availability of care in the long term.We provide evidence on these responses using a major Medicare payment change combined with survey data on physicians' time use.We find evidence that physicians increase their time spent on capacity building when remuneration increases, and that they are subsequently more willing to accept new patients--especially those who may be the residual claimants on marginal capacity.These forces imply that short-run supply curves likely differ from long-run supply curves.Policymakers need to account for how major changes to payment incentives would influence the investments that determine health system capacity.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.029
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.029
Threshold uncertainty score0.058

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.029
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0150.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.637
GPT teacher head0.524
Teacher spread0.113 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations9
Published2020
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNational Bureau of Economic ResearchSame topicHealthcare Policy and ManagementFrench-language works237,207